Madonna has adopted a little boy from Africa. The problem is that the Father is expressing confusion over the adoption agreement. He was under the impression that Madonna was going to care for his son and that he would still have parental rights affording him the return of his child once he was older and didn't need round the clock care.
NOTE: The Father's wife died after child birth and his other two children have already died.
What good is it for Madonna to keep this child now? The news reports and stories reveal the the child's father never wanted to give up his rights to his son. Does Madonna think this child will not grow up some day and hear about his father in Africa?
Madonna has no choice but to "DO THE RIGHT" and give the child back to the father. And if she really loves this child (WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN HER ONLY MOTIVATION FOR ADOPTION IN THE FIRST PLACE) Then she should use (even half) the money she would have spent on him, raising him to support the father.
2006-10-23 05:33:55 · 14 answers · asked by NONAME 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
Jenn: I was just posting similar questions in various categories, trying to get a mix of opinions.
2006-10-23 08:50:42 · update #1
I wonder if there is going to be a club for these kids in 10 or 20 years. "Celebrity Third World Adoptee's Reunion of 2020" and so forth. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one.
What's with celebratizing an otherwise normal and useful human being with a completely self indulgent lifestyle instead of financing the rebuilding of their war-torn town, burnt out churches, water wells? Help dozens of families, and further generations instead of one obscurely lucky poster child. Maybe these kids are going to have a sort of survivors guilt to have escaped their surely doomed existence in a third world country when millions died bitterly. Or brutally, as the case may be.
2006-10-23 10:15:33 · answer #1 · answered by devilUknow 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What people don't understand is that adoption over there isn't common so naturally the father had no idea this adoption was permanent and would mean he could possibly never see his son again. Since it was stated in the media he thought his son would go off, become well educated, and then return to the village when he was older, it's obvious someone did not explain this to him. I don't think returning the child to the father is a good idea, since the father gave the child up to the orphanage because he could not care for him. Regardless, I think what Madonna is doing is very noble. People aren't exactly lining up to adopt orphaned children from Africa, so why not commend Madonna for doing so if she has the money and resources to provide this child with a better life? No one gave Angelina Jolie any crap when she adopted twice so why is everyone jumping on Madonna's back?
2006-10-23 05:48:51 · answer #2 · answered by trafficjams 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The original agreement already made provisions for the Father to be part of the child's life.
Just because Madonna is celebrity, this is getting out of hand. What is wrong with her adopting a child that is in need, she can afford to take care of the child.
If the father truely did not understand the contract he was signing, that is unfortunate and I am sure Madonna's lawyers will sit down with the lawyers that are working on his behalf to find a solution.
2006-10-23 05:45:11 · answer #3 · answered by londonhawk 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My thoughts are that no matter what her beliefs are, it was the media and this child's family and associates, not her who leaked the story about the potential adoption. Why would a father who gives his child over to an orphanage suddenly want him back when he is older? My thinking is the same as those I see above me, he wants the 30-seconds of fame as well, he is not concerned about his child in a long term way, but rather thinking only of himself. A child who comes back to the existence the father is in currently would not be well cared for or be able to care for himself well, anyone would know that. I pray this father can heal and help his son be well cared for.
2006-10-23 05:58:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
So many children are in needs of homes, and adoptions are needed so that displaced kids can have a chance to grow and develop into functioning parts of society. Children who are taken out of such difficult situations, and are raised in loving environments, can be the greatest advocates for others in the same situations. These children can be the ones to help make a difference for future generations because they are so much closer to the situations......
I think it is so sad that Madonna chose to adopt a child that had a family. The family did not give the child away because he was unwanted, but because they were unable to care for him. They love the child dearly. There are millions of kids that have no one to love them, and they have no family.....these kids need to be reached first. Financially helping the family of the baby she is adopting could have been more humane, but economic dynamics in developing countries are tricky things to sort out.
I dont feel that Madonna is in the right heart, and should have thought this through in a less selfish manner.
2006-10-23 05:48:08 · answer #5 · answered by LothLorien 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think america figured out that she's adopting this kid to revive
her stalling carreer. I used to love madonna and nows shes just
a sad, old UK-wannabe with equally wierd kids. None of them smile, ever. have you noticed that? Ugh, What pises me off is that she picked a kid that has a dad thats alive. there are so many orphans that are indeed orphans b/c both parents are dead.
AND, she had the balls to hand out her books to the other orphans. starving illiterate orphans............all this money shes
wasting on "buying" this kid just b/c she feels she can, could be used on these poor villages, she could help them get running water going, vaccinations, ect. AT LEAST angelina jolie( as much as i hate her too) has put her money to good use. Madonna does nothing for america or the british, and im waiting for guy richie to leave her, but i think she literally "bought the rights" to him as well.
2006-10-23 05:43:44 · answer #6 · answered by Jenster*is*flipping*you*off 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
My opinion will always be the same: She should've adopted father And son, and take care of both.
And if the father has second thoughts, then she should give him back his child and give both support.
2006-10-23 06:35:11 · answer #7 · answered by cass 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I used to stick to her, nevertheless take excitement in her expertise, yet her comments to boot as others remarked against woman Ga Ga, i could extremely see the outrageous. GaGa is articulate, clever, mid 20's knowin the direction and the thank you to navigate it. If the different, i think of i could go with a rustic singer, yet i do no longer watch the great bowl besides, and yet locate the area called "tight end" amusin, LOL.
2016-11-25 00:18:31 · answer #8 · answered by eatough 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being from Africa myself..so I know what I'm talking about..it's not unusual for a "father" to suddenly not have "understood" what adopting means when he realises there might be "money" to be made from all of this...He knew pretty well what was going on..could see that from his very fiirst reactions to this whole debacle..but he changed his mind...after being informed..i'm sure...that he could have asked for a LOT of money....African fathers hardly ever care bout their kids...since they have up to 40 wives and goodness knows how many kids..this is a FACT...
2006-10-23 05:41:34 · answer #9 · answered by marleyanne b 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
She tried to buy a child!!!!!
I agree with your last statement, if she truly did love him then I expect a $10Million check for the father post haste!
2006-10-23 07:18:58 · answer #10 · answered by Fire_God_69 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋